Is it better to wait the opponent to attack first?

Question

Most martial arts adopt a defensive stance in self defense situations. They think it is not convenient to attack the opponent first, because you might be exposed to a counterattack. But others say you might take the iniciative first with a quick and surprisive strike, like in Jeet Kune Do for example. I heard Taekwondo also is more of an attacking than defensive martial art.

Answer 1

even within the 'attacking' styles, there are ways to play defensive, and even to bait. the point is to always find the opening - or create an opening - for an effective strike

Answer 2

It always depends on the situation. But one of the reasons for waiting for your opponent to attack first is to properly asses the situation. If you attack first, you've taken the option of a peaceful resolution away. Many times when confronted with an actual fight an opponent will back down even if he/she was acting aggressive.

However, if you deem a fight to be inevitable then I would say attacking first is the better strategy, especially if facing more then one opponent. The phrase, "the best defense is a good offense", comes to mind here. He can't hurt you if he's on the ground already reeling from the pounding you just gave him. A good example of this is the following video: *Warning Adult Language!* http://www.comegetyousome.com/viewvid.php?id=1673
After being threatened and trying to make peace with these two who obviously want to fight and have gotten physical he knocks one out and the other away.

Martial arts many times teach defensive strategies because to a practiced artist they can be more effective. An example of this is the following video: http://www.comegetyousome.com/viewvid.php?id=442
This is a Judo match where a charging opponent is taken down. Obviously a takedown of this type is reactionary but also in the form of a match rather then a street fight. However, I could easily see an opponent charging in a similar manner and being taken down by a trained martial artist.

Answer 3

it all truly depends on the situation that you are faced with. if you see it coming, i.e. the person is openly hostile and coming at you wait for them to make the move unless an obvious target is widely presented. if it's in close range and the opponent is, say, shoving at you, it would be wise to make a powerful strike first.

example: the way most fights start now adays is with one person getting in another's face and shoving them, usually at the shoulder. this has happened to me and after they push once i warn them not to do so again, if they do it again what i've done in the past is simply grapple their arms at the elbows to effectively prevent an attack and thrust a knee into either the solar plexus (near the sternum) or groin. an effective shot will stop them from moving.

however most martial arts tell you not to do this, what ever martial art you take you must be ready to addapt. all the taekwon do or jeet kun do training in the world will not help you if you always resort to your basic stance for a fight.

some martial arts like taichi (yes it *IS* a compotent defensive system) tell you to remain still and wait for the opponent to move. not attack. the premise behind this is that once they move you can interpret where they are moving to and counter before they execute a blow. this is not easy to do and you must keep a level head but once you put it into practice it can be very effective



in summary there is no real answer to that. if it is in close quarters you're best bet is to strike with a hard blow via elbow, knee or mid knuckles (panther strike) to a soft target like the groin, abdomen, throat or nose bridge. if it is over more distance make sure you establish you're range (how far you can effectively strike) and keep that control, if they move within that range you strike or wait for them to move in your favor. patience and watching for targets is clear.


i hope that helps you some n.n

Answer 4

One of the most important factors in any fight is initiative. Initiative, really, is keeping control of the fight, and to be offensive even while being on the defensive.

True, it might be said that the one to attck first might have taken the initiative right off the bat, but can he hold it long enough to make use of it? If that first attack is expected, who is in control of the engagment? The attacker, or the defender? Obviously the defender. And just as any string of blows must exhaust itself, either by the attacker running out of steam or room or by the defender using the rythms of incoming attacks to plan his own attacks and strike in the areas left wide open by his opponent.

A quick first strike can work, but it must be a total surprise and it must be enough to either disable your opponent or make sure that you will be able to follow through.

So unless you are 150% sure that what you have in mind will take your opponent down without any chance of retaliation, it would be better to wait out for him to make his move and then exploit it.

As I said, first strike does not necessarily mean initiative.

Answer 5

considering that i think this example is a situation where a peaceful resolution cannot be achieved, i would attack first.

when you know there is no other way out other than fighting, then why wait for the other person to take the initiative?

defense IS more important than offense, but that doesn't mean you don't act first, it means that you have good defense when you need to defend.

attacking first could mean throwing a feint to get the person to open up, and then taking advantage of that opening. but every feint should be a real attack that will hit the person if they do not defend. it's called a feint because you have an alterior motive as soon as the person responds to it.

Answer 6

Just curious is right to an extent , an opponent's future actions may be told in their involuntary actions , such as a blink , a change in stance etc.

When someone attacks with a kick , they protect the back side of their body by having their leg in the way.

I am a TKD instructor , and for the above reason maybe TKD is thought to be more of an attacking art than a defensive one as you have heard.

In the end it all depends on the principles taught by individual instructors , and also depends on the student. I know just as many national champion TKD students who are defensive as I do agressive attackers.

Answer 7

Foremost, you should always be aware of you surroundings and the situation at hand. If you are definitely going to have to fight someone with no way around it , and the opponent makes any kind of move toward a defensive posture,

ATTACK !!!

Any sign of posture such as, step back into stance, fist up, chambered fist, ****** head. And also watch the lead elbow this is his closest weapon if you see it move,
defend and attack at the same time(Lin Sil Dai Dar).
This strategy is twice as fast as normal block then attack system.

lr


http://www.pacificwingchunassociation.com

Answer 8

In practical uses, it's the guy who attacks first who usually wins. Now I believe this is the case because it shows who is the more aggressive fighter, statistically, it is the guys who throw the first punch who win about 70% of the time. It is impotant to have a good defense, and it's always wise in a fight to study your opponent first, before you trade blows. Remember that the more times you attack, the more changes you have to score a hit.

Answer 9

Fighting statistics are bullsheet. There is no real measure of multiple true street fights that is truly accurate.

First off, I highly doubt any such measurement, but if so it would be skewed because most of the time the guy who hits first is blindsiding or sucker punching another guy. This also is not a measure of a skilled individual vs. another skilled individual, etc.

It is pretty damn rare you are going to get into a fight period. Even rarer that there is going to be a face off between you and the guy who you are going to fight. Unless of course you are in middle school or something.

Real fights that occur when two people are running their mouths to each other usually include one or both parties being drunk.

But in the case that you do have a one to one face off and there is any kind of anticipation, one can simply walk away and never chose to fight.

First off, attacking first means that you will be the one who gets charges pressed upon them, that individual from that point on is defending themselves, and of course laws vary state to state or country to country.

But let's say you are a bouncer or something where you have no choice but to deal with this guy. You have the legal precedence that you are acting on behalf of the owner of a property and have by law, the ability to "forcefully remove" someone from the premises.

You still are going to have the burden of proof, that you used only the minimal amount of force necessary.

Whereas if a guy comes after you, you acted in self defense and "fear for your safety". Thus giving you a bit more latitude law wise.

That is the real world, because in the real world the cops get involved quite a bit, especially if someone gets hurt. That's not counting friends, weapons, etc.

So let's take it to fantasy land. Where you are out in a field, just you and your opponent, both agreed to fight, nothing illegal or wrong, just two men engaging in unarmed combat with one another.

Then both parties are anticipating an attack and preparing reactions to it. Acting first is indeed taking the initiative, but only if that attack is successful.

Chances are no matter how quick and explosive you are going to be, your opponent is waiting on it and will react. I think it is important to make an opponent fight your fight, so I guess it depends on style wise.

But in straight self defense, it is very rare you are going to see it coming, chances are you will be stuck in the situation and then have to react. But in the rare chance you do have any opportunity to attack first, keep in mind legally you are then the attacker, and subject to the laws of the land, and the burden of proof will fall on you as to why you preemptively attacked an individual.

Real world, self defense is self defense, and most Martial Arts's stance is that you are protecting yourself because you have to, not using your skill to attack others.

The element of surprise is key in many situations, but more often than not, the element of surprise lies with the attacker who choses when to attack. (most often in real situations with an attempted sucker punch or blind side).

Just my two cents for what it is worth.

Answer 10

To some extent it depends on your skill set. If your art uses an opponents momentum against him, you generally have to wait for him to move 1st. Striking arts can be used proactively. By taking the initiative, you are going to create a vulnerability. You are betting that your attack will make your opponent incapable of exploiting that vulnerability. If you wait, your opponent will create a vulnerability as he attacks. You are betting that you can fend off his attack & exploit the vulnerability. You just have to evaluate each situation.

Answer 11

I myself prefer to attack first. Never underestimate the element of surprise. By doing this you find out quickly whether your opponent is more of an aggressive or defensive fighter right away by the way he/she reacts. There is always the counterstrike to be concerned with, but if you know what you are doing you will counterstrike the counterstrike. Its just a chance you take.